NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 1839 RA M ON NO EL LEON - BA UTE, Pet i t i oner

v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N um berA 74- 023- 677 H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy , I m m i gr at i on J udge

Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 25, 2010 B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.T he A t t orneyG ener al cont ends thati nas m uch as “[p] et i t i oneri s a cr i m i nal al i en w ho 1 w as convi ct ed fortw o orm or e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude notar i s i ng outof a s in g le s c h e m e o f

c ri m in a l m is c o n d u c t” w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . R e s p o n d e n t’ s b r. a t 2 . H e a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e p e titio n w a s u n tim e ly u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (b) (1) . W e hav e con si dered t hese argum ents bu trej ectthem and thu s deci de the case on the m eri t s. 2 T hi s m att ercomes on be for e thi s C our ton pet i t i onerR amon L eon- B aut e’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on and or derdat ed J anuary31, 2007, of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) vaca t i ng gr ant s of as y l um and of w i thhol di ng of r emoval byan I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i n favorof pet i t i oner . T he B I A al s o or der ed pet i t i onerr emoved t o C uba. T he I J i n tw o or al deci s i ons on Sept ember27, 2006, and the B I A i n i t s deci s i on s etforth the fa ct s of the ca s e and thus w e have no need t o r epea tthem. T he B I A had juri sd ict ion u n d er 8 C . F . R . § § 1 0 0 3 . 1 (b)(3 ) an d 1 2 4 0 . 1 5 an d w e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). 1 In th ese p roc ee d ing s the B IA ’s de cisi o n is “co n clus ive u n less m an ifestl yco n tr ary to th e law a n d a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(D ). S e e L u v . A sh c ro f t, 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Factual fi ndi ngs s upport i ng the B I A deci s i on m aybe r ever s ed onl yi f nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . See al s o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ( “[A ] dm i ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude to th e c o n tr a ry.” ). In its d e c isio n th e B IA e x p lain e d w ith re sp e c t to p e tit io n e r’s c laim th a t:3 W e agr ee w i th the [D epartm entof H om el and Secur i ty ] thatthe [pet i t i oner ] di d notdes erve a f avor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on forpurpos es o f a s y lu m . W e re v ie w th is is s u e d e n o v o . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )( 3 )( ii) . T he [pe t i t i oner ] has a l ong cr i m i nal hi s t oryw hi ch i ncl udes atl eas tt en convi ct i ons fors hopl i ft i ng, tw o forbur gl ary , and one e ach f orfel onyj oy r i di ng, hi nder i ng appr ehens i on, and pos s es s i on of a hypoderm i c nee dl e ( s ee E x h . 9 ) . I n t o t a l , h e h a s th r e e f e l o n yc o n v i c t i o n s , a n d h i s l a s ttwo c o n v ic tio n s f

o r b u rg la ry re s u lte d in 5 y e a r s e n te n c e s , to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly. T he r epea t ed natur e of the cr i m es , and the [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] s i gni fi cantcr i m i nal se n ten c e f

o r th e b u rg lar yc rim e s, e v id e n c e s a h isto ryw h ich c a n n o t b e e a sily over l ooked. T he [pe t i t i oner ] has been i ncar cer at ed s i nce 2002, and exc ept forone i nfr act i on, has a good pr i s on r ecor d. T hi s i s a fa vor abl e fa ct or , but is o f lim ited v a lu e w h e n c o m p a re d to th e d u ra tio n o f h is c rim in a l ac tiv ity w h ich h as d o m inated h is t im e a s a law fu l r esid en t i n this co u n try . F u rth er, the [pe t i t i oner ] has no s i gni fi canthi s t oryof empl oym ent , and di d not es t abl i s h thathi s phy s i cal di s abi l i ty , forw hi ch he appar ent l yr ece i ved Soci al Secur i tyI ncome, compl et el ypr ecl uded anyform of m eani ngful e m p lo ym e n t. T h e f

a c t th a t h is m o th e r n o w re sid e s in th e U n ited S tate s is s i gni fi cant , buton the w hol e, the [pe t i t i oner ] di d notpr es entevi dence of ext ens i ve fa m i l yt i es t o thi s country . W hen cons i der i ng al l of the r el evant f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g th e d i f f i c u l t i e s h e wi l l f

a c e u p o n r e tu rn t o Cu b a , we det erm i ne thata fa vor abl e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on i s notw arr ant ed and the gr antof as y l um s houl d be vac at ed. A p p . at 5 . T h e B IA th e n h e ld th a t p e tit io n e r h a d n o t es tab lish e d th a t itw a s “ m o re lik e ly than notthathe w i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on [on the bas i s of an e num er at ed gr ound for the w i thhol di ng of r emoval upon hi s ] r eturn t o C uba. ” I d. Fi nal l ythe B I A expl ai ned w hy p e titio n e r w a s n o t e n title d to re lie f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu re . E xer ci s i ng the appr opr i at e s t andar ds of def er ent i al r evi ew , w e fi nd no bas i s on w hi ch t o gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew . I ndeed, even i f w e r evi ew ed thi s m att erde novo o u r re su lt w o u ld b e th e sa m e . W e th in k th a t th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s b rie f is a c c u ra te w hen i ti ndi cat es that“pet i t i oneri s a ca r eercr i m i nal i n the U ni t ed St at es w hos e es cal at i ng4

cr i m e s pr ee e nded onl yw hen he w as fi nal l yputi n j ai l . ” R es pondent ’ s brat13. I n the c irc u m sta n c e s it w o u ld b e u n re a so n a b le to re jec t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to th e e x ten t th a t it i nvol ved the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. M or eover , w e ar e aw ar e of no r eas on t o r ej ectthat decis i on on a l egal basi s. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew of the dec i s i on and or derof the B I A of J anuary31, 2007, w i l l be deni ed. T he C our tnot es thatthe C l erk of thi s C ourtent er ed an or deron J ul y23, 2007, appoi nt i ng J os eph Lei bow i cz, E s q. and S. M ahmood A hm ad, E s q. as couns el for peti t i on er and fu rther notes that Sved D . A l i , E sq. and D on na L . W i l son, E sq. al so p a r t i c i p a t e d o n p e t i t i o n e r ’ s b e h a l f i n th e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . T h e C o u r tth a n k s th e s e a t t o rn e ys and expr es s es i t s appr eci at i on t o them for thei rs ervi ce.